Tests

For your convenience the results are represented in percent, 100% being the result of AMD Athlon II X4 620. Absolute results are provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

3D visualization

Multi-core optimization in visualization tasks still leaves much to be desired. Besides, these tests favor Intel processors over AMD's. So the last place of the Phenom II X6 isn't a surprise. The rest are seemingly arranged by clock rate, but don't jump to conclusions, this group of tests has a lot of applications for which 4GB RAM is not enough. Otherwise, Core i7-950 wouldn't have shared the first place with Core i7-880: the boost mode allows the latter to operate at higher clock rate which makes up for smaller RAM. This is all relevant to our tests, of course. You shouldn't neglect memory, if you use such applications in real life. We also confirmed the assumption that 860/870 and 870/880 would correlate in a different way. Which means that newer versions of the software at least tries to use more than two threads.

3D rendering

These results may seem strange, but they are not. As you remember, with all cores loaded, the Core i7-870 and Core i7-880 can increase clock rates by two steps: up to 3.2GHz and 3.33GHz, respectively. While the Core i7-950 can only go one step higher to the same 3.2GHz as the Core i7-870 has. The Core i7-860 is an outsider, because it only overclocks to 2.93GHz. In other words, such distribution of Intel processors is quite obvious. As for the Phenom, it could've done better. It could compete with the Core i7-920/930, but the Core i7-860 was already out of reach. Six cores are better than four, but eight threads are still better than six cores. Besides, at higher efficiency per megahertz, with a larger and faster L3 cache and other benefits, even a slight increase of the clock rate (e.g. in the boost mode) negates the initial advantage. Finally, the reduction of Core i7-870 and 950 prices dots the i's. To improve the situation, AMD should increase the clock rate by at least 20%, which is hardly possible for hexacore Phenoms.

Scientific calculations

These applications are older than those in the first group of tests, so they offer even less support for multi-threading. Under these conditions the scheme and quality of Turbo Boost mode plays a more important role. Obviously, Core i7-950 just has nothing to oppose to the 800 series. Phenom II X6 1090T isn't the best as well. It does have Turbo CORE, but it seems it isn't properly supported yet. And Intel cores are faster at the same clock rates. On the other hand, the difference between the best and the worst CPU in this test is a bit more than 10%, so all of the above may not be that important.

Image editing

There's just one application in this group of tests that is relatively well optimized for multi-threading — Adobe Photoshop. The fact that 4GB of RAM isn't quite enough for it helpes Core i7-950 finish the second. However, this group is mostly affected by three applications non-professional programs that have no needs for all the frills. That's why the third place of Core i7-87x is largely formal, the difference is less than 1%. As expected, Core i7-880 became the leader easily. In turn, Phenom II X6 finished last& mdash; not a surprise as well. In Photoshop its six cores are challenged by the eight threads of Core i7. And in ordinary programs Turbo Boost does its job well.

Data compression/decompression

The result is expected. The 800 series has higher uncore clock rates than the 900 series, this shows in all archivers. It also has more agressive Turbo Boost, which is important in two tests out of three that do not load all cores. The loss of Phenom II X6 is also expected, because it has nothing to help it win or perform on a par.

Compiling (VC++)

Visual Studio likes every, any feature a processor can offer. But primarily the number of physical cores. Hence the first success of the Phenom II X6 that managed to catch up with the Core i7-860. Although these days it already has to compete with Core i7-870 and 950 which are faster.

Java

This the big time of the Phenom II X6! And yet again it's expected, because the JVM, while working well with virtual threads, still prefers physical cores. And it's not demanding to cache and memory as well. Besides, Intel and AMD has always offered similar efficiency per megahertz in this test. The results of other competitors are quite predictable. Even the third place of the Core i7-950 isn't surprising. About half a year ago we confirmed that this test is one of the few preferring the triple-channel memory controller of "older" Nehalems.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!